Click on a thumbnail to go to Google Books.
Loading... Lolita: A Screenplayby Vladimir Nabokov
None Loading...
Sign up for LibraryThing to find out whether you'll like this book. No current Talk conversations about this book. no reviews | add a review
Is contained inIs an adaptation ofReference guide/companion to
The screenplay for Kubrick's 1962 film tells the story of an older man's obsession with a young girl. No library descriptions found. |
Current DiscussionsNonePopular covers
Google Books — Loading... GenresNo genres Melvil Decimal System (DDC)791.4372The arts Recreational and performing arts Public performances Film, Radio, and Television Film Films, screenplays Single filmsLC ClassificationRatingAverage:
Is this you?Become a LibraryThing Author. |
For starters, and it may have been the intervening years since my last read of Lolita that did this, but I was impressed by how the screenplay seemed to more clearly elucidate the points of the plot. The story seemed far easier to follow, perhaps because it was Nabokov's task to explain in many places rather than describe (the description would have been the director's job, after all). The result is a very lucid work that pairs well as a primer of sorts to the novel.
The characters too are very different, most notably Humbert, and I'm not quite sure how well it works here. The intense narcissism of the first-person narrative in the novel is what makes it so brilliant: we are stunned by how much we like and care about a monster like him. But the screenplay sees him from a distance, and for much of the early goings, even during his attempts at courting Lolita, he seems detached and a bit distant. I imagine this was intentional, and that there's more to decipher when comparing the two works, but the screenplay Humbert lacked the same kind of "grab" that the novel's character did.
The descriptions are nothing short of stunning, and very much on par with the novel. Nabokov knows how to paint a scene, and particularly the moments where Humbert and Lolita are traveling through the American countryside are just as evocative as they were in the novel.
Is it wrong to read this merely in comparison? Perhaps. But I can't really help it, considering how strongly I feel about Lolita as a novel and a work of art. The screenplay is strong, sure, but I can't help feeling it's lesser than the novel. And that's fine. The fact that it can function as something that pairs nicely with and plays off its source material makes it a fascinating and worthwhile read anyway.